xplanation is fundamentally about named functions, so I don’t
> understand this “general expression” bit. Sorry!
>
>
>
> Simon
>
>
>
> *From:* ghc-devs [mailto:ghc-devs-boun...@haskell.org] *On Behalf Of *Conal
> Elliott
> *Sent:* 01 February 2016 01:16
> *To:*
Elliott
Sent: 01 February 2016 01:16
To: ghc-devs@haskell.org
Subject: Re: Specializing expressions beyond names?
A related question: if there are a great many rules of the form "reify (foo
...) = ...", where 'reify' is always present (and the outermost application
head) but for man
A related question: if there are a great many rules of the form "reify (foo
...) = ...", where 'reify' is always present (and the outermost application
head) but for many different argument expressions, will rule matching be
linear (expensive) in the number of such rules?
-- Conal
On Sun, Jan 31,
